Louisville & Interurban Railroad v. Kirk

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that factor slightly favored stay where two of eleven patents and three of twenty-two claims were under review in the IPR proceedings
• finding that party’s decision to not seek preliminary injunction undermined its claim of undue prejudice because it would have its legal and equitable remedies available when the stay lifted
• finding that filing IPR petitions within a week of the statutory deadline was not unreasonable, stating, “[i]t was reasonable for EMC to wait for ACQIS to choose which claims it intended to assert in the litigation before pursuing IPRs”
• finding that filing IPR petitions within a week of the statutory deadline was not unreasonable, stating, “[i]t was reasonable for EMC to wait for ACQIS to choose which claims it intended to assert in the litigation before pursuing IPRs”
• finding that the “stage of the litigation” factor weighed in favor of a stay where expert discovery had not begun, “[n]otwithstanding the fact that substantial document and written discovery has already occurred, and a claim construction opinion has been issued”
• collecting cases where stays were imposed despite the completion of discovery and the issuance of claim construction orders

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).